Re: [OPE-L] commensurability of value

From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Tue Feb 01 2005 - 07:44:46 EST

Hi Paul C:

I previously asked:

> Aren't you  implicitly assuming that SNLT in 1860 Germany
> equals SNLT in Japan in the 1990s?

You  replied:

> Distinguish two things here - necessity of labour with respect
> to the market on which a commodity is sold - and expenditure
> of labour as a fraction of the workers life.

Interesting.  Before I get to the theoretical issues here,  a
factual question:  has there ever been an empirical study of
value that measured the expenditure of labor performed "as a
fraction of the workers life"?

This would certainly complicate international comparisons
because the expenditure of labour as a fraction of the
workers' life would vary with:

*  international differences in the length of the working day;

*  international differences in the length of the workweek;

* international differences in non-working (paid) time for
     illness, vacation, child-rearing, etc.

* international differences in time required for training and

* international differences in life expectancy;

* international differences in years worked (which, in addition
    to the above, is also related to differences in pension systems,
   state programs for the elderly, the extent to which working
   family members provide for the necessary requirements of the
   elderly, etc.)

If the above are taken into consideration, might it not cause
what it counted as necessary labor time to increase and what
is counted as surplus labor time to decrease? I.e. if SNLT
is considered in relation to a workers' entire lifetime rather than
actual working time then some additional amount of
compensation would be required for the workers' long-term,
i.e. lifetime, requirements.

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 02 2005 - 00:00:00 EST